If your child came home from college and said she was challenged by a classmate who claimed that Palestine is Arab land stolen by the Jews, could you provide her with a response?

That is the question Douglas Feith asks in the article he recently wrote for Tablet Magazine. Based on a speech he gave to the Canadian Institute for Jewish Research, Feith offers a helping hand to his fellow Jews - who really should not be having such a tough time arguing for the Jewish right to Israel:

The campaign to delegitimate Israel has been scoring successes. The efforts to counter that campaign have often proven inept. That too I find astonishing.

In the arena of argumentation, the Jews are practiced, having continuously honed their debating skills since Abraham questioned God about Sodom. They should be formidable in explaining why Israel is not colonialist and refuting other calumnies. Yet they’re often beaten into retreat by anti-Zionist polemicists. There’s no excuse for it.

He then goes on to outline a response.

What he writes is not new, but still bears repeating --

o During the 400 years leading to World War I, Palestine was part of the Ottoman Empire -- was owned by the Turks, not by the Arabs living in Palestine.o There was never a country called Palestine.o Palestine was never ruled by its own Arab inhabitants.o Therefore, it is not accurate to say that Palestine was a country, or that it was Arab land.o And neither the Jews nor the British stole it from the Arabs.o The original Zionists who came to live in then-Palestine did not come as colonists, nor with the backing of an imperialist or colonialist power. Jews bought the land on which they settled.

Rabbi Moses Porush (c.) and Arab Landowner holding deed for a large tract of landthat Rabbi Moses Porush and Rabbi Joseph Levi Hagiz purchased from the Arab.Credit: Wikipedia. Public Domain

Feith does give context to the situation during WWI that is generally overlooked.

The British invasion of Palestine in World War I was precipitated by the Ottoman Turks, who joined Germany and attacked the Allied forces. When the British war cabinet approved the Balfour Declaration on October 31, 1917, -- it was already more than 3 years into World War I.

And the war was not going well for the Allies.

It was one of those rare occasions when the exaggerated belief in Jewish power and influence actually worked to the benefit of the Jews. The British saw an opportunity to gain support in Russia and the US.

As for Palestine itself,

colonialism didn’t bring Britain to Palestine. Britain didn’t seize Palestine from an unoffending native population. It conquered the land not from the Arabs, but from Turkey, which (as noted) had joined Britain’s enemies in the war. The Arabs in Palestine fought for Turkey against Britain. The land was enemy territory. [emphasis added]

The British view of Palestine, and of the Arabs living there, was taken in the context of the area as a whole. Palestine was just a small part of a huge region the British forces conquered from the Turks -- and even though most Arabs had fought for the Turks, the Allies were ready to set the Arabs on the path to independence and national self-determination. However, the small piece of land that was the "Holy Land" had a unique status, of special interest to Christians and Jews around the world.

And the Arabs already living in Palestine?

The idea that a small segment of the Arab people – the Palestinian Arabs – would someday live in a Jewish-majority country was not thought of as a unique problem. There were similar issues in Europe. After World War I, new nations were created or revived: Poland, Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia and Hungary, for example. Inevitably, some people would have to live as a minority in neighboring states. Seven hundred thousand Hungarians would become a minority in Czechoslovakia, almost 400,000 in Yugoslavia and 1.4 million in Romania. Where they were a minority, they would have individual rights, but not collective rights. That is, ethnic Hungarians would not have national rights of self-determination in Romania, but only in Hungary.

The principle applicable to European minorities applied also to the Arabs of Palestine. In any given country, only one people can be the majority, so only one can enjoy national self-determination there. The Arab people would eventually rule themselves in Syria, Lebanon, Iraq and Arabia. They were going to end up in control of virtually all the land they claimed for themselves. They naturally wanted to be the majority everywhere. But then, the Jews could be the majority nowhere. The victorious Allies did not consider that just.

The British were actually taken by surprise by the accusation that they were being unjust to the Arabs, especially considering the actual history of Palestine, what the British had sacrificed for the liberation of the Middle East from Ottoman control and the fact that the Arabs fought on the side of the enemy.

Feith quotes from a speech Balfour gave in 1922 on the issue:

“Of all the charges made against this country,” he said, that “seems to me the strangest.” It was, he recalled, “through the expenditure largely of British blood, by the exercise of British skill and valour, by the conduct of British generals, by troops brought from all parts of the British Empire . . . that the freeing of the Arab race from Turkish rule has been effected.” He went on, “That we . . . who have just established a King in Mesopotamia, who had before that established an Arab King in the Hejaz, and who have done more than has been done for centuries past to put the Arab race in the position to which they have attained—that we should be charged with being their enemies, with having taken a mean advantage of the course of international negotiations, seems to me not only most unjust to the policy of this country, but almost fantastic in its extravagance.”

Arthur Balfour. Source: Wikipedia. Public Domain

This is all part of the Zionist history that Feith believes Jews need to know in order to respond to the claim that the British stole Palestine and just gave it away to the Jews.

The problem, of course, is that the "other side" is not arguing from facts, nor are they appealing to logic. Just look around. On social media, people do not make logical arguments and they have no interest in history -- facts just make their eyes glaze over. Meanwhile, on college campuses, Jews are not being engaged in debate, they are being harassed by groups who want to eliminate debate and the free speech of their victims while isolating them.

Yes, we do need to know about our history and our birthright.But let's not fool ourselves into thinking that Israel is the subject of a debate.

Israel is the target of an attack.And we are still on the defensive.

We have lots of ideas, but we need more resources to be even more effective. Please donate today to help get the message out and to help defend Israel.

In response to the Pittsburgh Massacre, Chabad Jewish Center of Ridgefield and the Ridgefield Library invite resident to an evening of discussion and conversation, with Holocaust survivor Judith Kallman. Kallman, who was a child growing up in Czechoslovakia when World War II broke out, will share her experiences surviving the mass genocide of the holocaust on Wednesday, Nov. 7 at ... read more

Kedves Érdeklődő! Üdvözli Önt a lira. hu online könyváruház csapata. Kedvező személyes átvételi lehetőség Budapest szívében, a Fókusz Könyváruházban (1072 Budapest Rákóczi út 14. ). Áruházunk közel 50 éve széles könyvválasztékkal áll a vevők rendelkezésére. A megrendelt könyveket a személyes átvételen túl házhozszállítással is átveheti. A szállítási díj a rendelés értékétől függ: 5000 Ft alatt 799 Ft, 5001-10000 Ft között 599 Ft, 10000 Ft felett ingyenes az ország egész területén. Minden könyvünk új, kiváló állapotú, azonban a folyamatosan változó készlet miatt előfordulhat, hogy a megrendelt könyv elfogyott áruházunk készletéből. LEÍRÁS1431554Continuities - discontinuities Secret Services after Stalin's Death in Communist Central and Eastern EuropeThe studies of this volume grant a glimpse into the metamorphosis of thesecret services of the various Central Eastern European satellite states after Stalin's death. While each study touches upon the low-key corrective measures leveled at the Party and state leadership apparatuses of their respective countries, they largely focus on the unfolding process of the reorganization(s) of the secret services, and the reprogramming of their "positions of power" within the system. With regard to the general situation of the satellite states towards the end of Stalinism, studies dedicated to the contemporary German Democratic Republic, Czechoslovakia, Poland, Bulgaria and Hungary show a strong convergence on two major points. One was that the economy and all public services relying on redistribution were on the verge of collapsing; and the other was their remarkably similar assessments of the reorganization of the secret services, which had gained too much power under Stalinism, even overthe ruling communist party. Regarding the post-Stalinist period and the de-Stalinization process, the studies also discuss the responses of the state security bodies across the Soviet Bloc, as well as the organizational and methodological changes implemented in accordancewith how the political leadership of a given country "reacted to" the modified policies and "gearshifts" of Soviet party leadership. With Stalin's death, the relative diversity within the Soviet Bloc also became more and more apparent as each satellite state attempted to adjust the socialist system to its own national character, and this volume explores how that diversity can be traced and captured in the history of the Central Eastern European secret services. Szállítási és átvételi lehetőségek: Személyes átvételBudapest szívében, az Astoria és a Blaha Lujza tér között található Fókusz Könyváruházban. Cím: 1072 Budapest Rákóczi út 14. Nyitvatartás: Hétköznap 9: 30-20: 00Szombaton 10: 00-17: 00Megrendelését karácsony után tudjuk teljesíteni. Személyes átvétel esetén értesítést küldünk, hogy mikor veheti át a rendelést, amennyiben értesítés nélkül jön átvenni a rendelést, azt nem tudjuk teljesíteni. HázhozszállításA szállítási díj a rendelés értékétől függ: 5000 Ft alatt 799 Ft, 5001-10000 Ft között 599 Ft, 10000 Ft felett ingyenes az ország egész területén. Köszönjük, hogy bennünket választott, reméljük, hogy a jövőben is megelégedésére szolgálunk. Üdvözlettel: A lira. hu csapata

Marine Le Pen’s National Rally has overtaken the centrist party of Emmanuel Macron, the French president, for the first time, according to an opinion poll released Sunday, in a further sign of the rise of the far-Right in Europe.

The Ifop poll measured voting intentions for European Parliament elections next May, seen as a decisive battle between pro-EU liberals and Eurosceptic populists that could be pivotal in shaping the future of the European Union after Brexit.

Together with the seven per cent of people planning to vote for a smaller far-Right party, Stand Up France, and two per cent going for two small “Frexit” parties, the French far-Right has won 30 per cent of voting intentions, a five-point gain since August, according to the poll.

In a landmark victory, the Front National won the largest share of the French vote in the last European elections in 2014, when the Socialist Party held power in France.

Mr Macron is leading the campaign for the 2019 European elections, which he has described as “a contest between progressives and nationalists”.

On a recent visit to Slovakia and the Czech Republic, Mr Macron railed against populists, accusing Hungarian and Polish leaders of being “fantasists [who] lie to their people.”

He said it angered him to see posters with slogans such as “Stop Brussels”, arguing that EU membership had brought countries such as Hungary and Poland greater prosperity.

Last week he urged Europeans to “resist” what he called “the nationalist leprosy”.

He said: “The moment we are living through resembles the period between the two world wars…

"In a Europe divided by fear, the nationalist withdrawal, the consequences of the economic crisis, one sees almost methodically the recurrence of everything that set the pace of European life from the end of the First World War to the Great Depression of 1929.”

Nevertheless, the French president’s approval ratings have plunged to 21 per cent amid rising discontent over his failure to fulfil his election pledges to slash unemployment, boost growth and cut taxes.

Fuel price increases stemming from tax increases justified as an anti-pollution measure have alienated rural and small-town voters, and the president has also been damaged by a scandal over his bodyguard who was filmed beating protesters.

Ms Le Pen’s party appears to be the only opposition group benefiting from Mr Macron’s unpopularity.

The far-Left France Unbowed party, whose leader Jean-Luc Mélenchon took nearly 20 per cent of the vote in the first round of France’s presidential election last year, fell three points to 11 per cent in the European election poll.

Munk debates are very formal, serious and orderly debates in Canada that get big publicity. But Leftists hungered after that publicity

Violent clashes during Steve Bannon debate in Toronto end with two cops left injured and demonstrators left bloodied and bruised

Police made 12 arrests as protesters delayed the start of a controversial debate featuring Bannon and conservative commentator David Frum.

Toronto Police tweeted 12 people face various charges and two officers suffered minor injuries, one was hit with a stick and another was punched in the face. The debate was delayed for about a half hour and Bannon was interrupted by a protester during his opening statement.

Many in the crowd of 2,700 at the Munk debate groaned and laughed at Bannon when he said he hasn't seen a bad decision by President Donald Trump yet.

When Bannon earlier called it a very tough crowd, one audience member responded 'No, smart.'

'Trump's economic nationalism doesn't care about your race, your ethnicity or color,' Bannon said to a jeering crowd at another point.

The protester that interrupted the debate unfurled a banner that read 'No Hate. No Bigoty. No Place for Bannon's White Supremacy.'

Bannon thanked the people of Toronto and the organizers for having him and the protesters outside for exercising their freedom of speech rights to protest.

Frum and Bannon debated whether 'The future of Western politics is populist, not liberal.' Frum argued populism offers nothing but anger and fear and said he had faith in voters.

'I know the fear that many feel,' Frum said. 'This is not the first time that democracy has faced thugs, and crooks and bullies and would be dictators and those who would seek to build themselves up by tearing others down. This is not the first time that people have puffed themselves as the wave of the future. They were wrong then and they are wrong now.'

Frum called the rise in populism the most dangerous challenge that liberal democratic institutions have faced since the end of communism.

'It's not a question of whether populism is on the rise and whether populism is going to be the political future,' Bannon said. 'The only question before us: Is it going to be populist nationalism or populist socialism?'

Bannon played a central role in the 2016 campaign of Trump. Bannon said next week's midterms are critical test of the populist movement but said they are just in the first inning of it.

QUESTION 3 on the Nov. 6 ballot in Massachusetts asks voters whether they want to retain or repeal a 2016 state law that makes it illegal to discriminate against transgender people in places of public accommodation. That law specifies that any place with separate facilities for males and females, such as bathrooms and locker rooms, must allow access to individuals on the basis of their "gender identity," regardless of their biological sex.

The measure doesn't appear to be very contentious. If a Suffolk University/Boston Globe poll released on Monday is correct, 68 percent of Massachusetts voters intend to vote Yes on Question 3, to keep the law on the books.

I'm with the 28 percent who plan to vote No. In my view, there are at least three reasons why the transgender-identity law was a mistake and should be rejected.

I oppose laws that force private businesses or organizations to serve customers or accept patrons against their will. Private vendors, employers, and places of public accommodation should have broad legal freedom to decide for themselves whom they wish to deal with. The only exception I support is banning discrimination based on race, since American law for so many generations mandated racial repression and discrimination. Otherwise, there should be no "protected" categories at all. Where liberty and free choice flourish, bigotry and xenophobia tend to recede. Society should rely on the power of markets and public sentiment to eliminate invidious discrimination, not the iron fist of regulators and prosecutors.

Granted, this is theoretical. The wholesale repeal of anti-bias statutes is not in the cards. But at least the pressure to expand those laws by adding more and more demographic groups to the already lengthy list of protected classes should be resisted.

Transgender individuals should always be treated with respect — that should go without saying. But Massachusetts should also respect its citizens' freedom of association, and trust them to use their own judgment when gender identity is at issue.

2. Massachusetts has already shown that it can routinely accommodate transgender access — no law required.

Addressing Question 3 in a statement last Monday, the University of Massachusetts assured the "100,000 students, faculty, staff, and guests" who are on UMass campuses each day that regardless of the referendum result, bathrooms and changing facilities will continue to be open to anyone who wants to use them.

"We will retain our present policy on restroom and locker room access on our campuses by allowing transgender and gender-nonconforming students, faculty, staff, and guests to choose facilities consistent with their gender identity," the statement said.

What is true of UMass is true of every establishment in Massachusetts: They can sort this out for themselves. Supporters of the Yes on 3 campaign include many of the largest corporations, sports teams, labor unions, police organizations, and colleges in the state. None of them needs Beacon Hill to tell them how to operate their bathrooms or other intimate spaces.

Everyone in Massachusetts goes to the bathroom, and 99.9 percent of the time, people use the facilities suited to their needs without causing problems for anyone else. They were doing so before the 2016 law was passed. They'll do so if the law is overturned.

That leaves the 0.1 percent of instances when the presence of an anatomical male in a space meant for females does cause genuine distress, and leads to my third argument for voting No on Question 3:

3. The transgender-identity law ignores sensitive issues of privacy and vulnerability.

Opponents of the 2016 law didn't mobilize to put this referendum on the ballot because they object to transgender people being served in coffee shops, bookstores, or hotels. The opposition is fueled solely by concern about the tiny fraction of cases in which the mismatch between someone's bodily sex and gender identity is not only obvious, but makes women or girls uneasy.

Such cases may be rare, but they are real. In December 2017, a biological male who identifies as a woman sought out a women's spa in Milton for a "full Brazilian" waxing. When the spa was unwilling to perform a pubic waxing on a customer with male genitalia, the customer filed a complaint under the public accommodations law with the Attorney General's office. (The complaint was withdrawn before the case went to litigation.)

When the Legislature added "gender identity" to the public accommodations law, it could have exempted private spaces that are routinely segregated by sex. Its refusal to do so is the sole reason the law is now being challenged. The 2016 law rides roughshod over the discomfort, reserve, and modesty of women and girls at the presence of male bodies in a place meant for females only.

This is not an illegitimate concern. Indeed, Massachusetts legislators acknowledged as much, when they passed a 1998 law exempting women's gyms from the state's public-accommodations law. Normally there is no justification for discrimination by sex or gender. But it is only common sense that bathrooms, showers, waxing salons, and other intimate environments require special sensitivity.

The gender-identity law jettisons that sensitivity. Voters, in response, should jettison the law.

Thousands of backpackers who travel to Australia will have their working visas extended as the Federal Government looks to permanently end worker shortages on farms.

Annual working holiday visa caps will be lifted, the age limit raised to 35 for select countries, and backpackers will also be able to triple the length of their stay in some instances after formally agreeing to more agricultural work.

Prime Minister Scott Morrison has endorsed the sweeping changes, with backpackers also no longer required to leave jobs every six months.

They will now be encouraged to stay with the same employer for up a year.

The Government has been under increasing pressure to help struggling farmers after the Nationals failed to deliver on a promised agriculture visa, and Mr Morrison's ambitious plan to force dole recipients to pick fruit never got off the ground.

Nationals MP Keith Pitt urged federal government representatives to increase the number of backpackers because farms in his local Bundaberg region were struggling to survive.

As part of the newly introduced farm labourer push, overseas visitors with a Pacific Islander background will now be able to work for nine months rather than the current six month limit.

Daily Mail Australia understands Mr Morrison has also not ruled out agreeing to another agriculture visa if the changes don't fill the required jobs on farms.

The Prime Minister said the primary aim was to deliver immediate help and willing workers to farmers.

'Australians filling Australian jobs is my number one priority but when this isn't possible we need to ensure our farmers aren't left high and dry with rotting crops, especially in the strawberry industry,' Mr Morrison told the Courier Mail.

American "liberals" often deny being Leftists and say that they are very different from the Communist rulers of other countries. The only real difference, however, is how much power they have. In America, their power is limited by democracy. To see what they WOULD be like with more power, look at where they ARE already very powerful: in America's educational system -- particularly in the universities and colleges. They show there the same respect for free-speech and political diversity that Stalin did: None. So look to the colleges to see what the whole country would be like if "liberals" had their way. It would be a dictatorship.

Two years, four months and a few days ago, on 23rd June 2016, the UK voted to leave the EU. The date of the UK leaving is currently set at 29th March 2019 – almost three years after the vote. It could be postponed further. In the case of a transitional arrangement that could last until at least the end of 2020, possibly even beyond the general election in 2022. That would be an enormous six years after the historic vote.

EU mandarins as well as Whitehall mandarins will tell you it must be this way because the relationship the UK has with the EU is too complex to untangle sooner.

However, history offers a different angle. World War I lasted four years, World War II lasted six. Perhaps it’s easier to conquer and then lose an entire continent than to separate two jurisdictions peacefully?

Instead, look at Czechoslovakia, the country where I was born, but a country I never think of as my birthplace. That is because before I even went to school, it had not only transformed from a socialist republic and a Soviet satellite to a liberal democracy, but it also split into two nations. All I have ever known, therefore, has been the Czech Republic. All the turbulent history – Václav Havel elected President, the Velvet Revolution, the first free election, the beginning of economic transformation, Václav Klaus elected Prime Minister, the Velvet Divorce – happened within the first six years of my life.

The curious thing about this is the Velvet Divorce. Let me just briefly remind you of the timeline: the pivotal elections that took place on 5th and 6th June 1992 saw Václav Klaus’s party in the Czech Republic and Vladimír Mečiar’s party in Slovakia both take the lion’s share of the vote in their respective state parliaments and the federal parliament (Czechoslovakia had already been a federation for over 20 years at this point).

Tensions erupted quickly. The Czech PM Václav Klaus met the Slovak PM Vladimír Mečiar in Brno on 8th July and they agreed to split up the federation. The agreement was signed on 26th August and Václav Havel resigned his seat in the meantime (20th July). By 13th November, a law had been enacted as to how the federal assets were going to be divvied up and twelve days later, an act was passed that set the dissolution date at 31st December. Complex matters such as the continuity of the Czech Parliament, continuity of laws, arrangements for courts and so on were all swiftly determined by December. A new Czech Constitution was passed on 16th December.

Czechoslovakia was dissolved at midnight on New Year’s Eve. When the people woke up the next morning, they had new nationalities and the Czech Parliament re-elected Václav Havel as President on 26th January 1993.

Within a mere six months, a comprehensive settlement had been agreed and activated. Immobile assets were distributed to the country where they sat, mobile assets and assets abroad were distributed according to the rough population ratio 2:1. Amendments to international treaties signed by Czechoslovakia were negotiated and signed very quickly by both new republics, confirming the continuation of such treaties. In 1996, the two countries signed a protocol specifying the distribution of duties enshrined by treaties signed as Czechoslovakia. All of this happened whilst Czechoslovakia and its constituent countries were undergoing a massive economic transformation.

Czechoslovakia was privatising on an unprecedented scale and at an unprecedented pace. In a way, it was like Brexit and the UK’s 1980s privatisations combined, only a lot more complicated. Whereas the 1980s UK privatised two companies a year, the early 1990s Czechoslovakia privatised two companies an hour. Taken together, these companies’ accounting value was a big share of GDP. The voucher privatisation alone (there were other methods of privatisation) privatised companies worth one third of Czechoslovak GDP. All of this was taking place at the exact same time the republics were being separated.

Let us not forget the fact that Czechoslovakia was also a currency union. The original idea was that the currency would continue after the separation, but the Czechoslovak koruna outlived Czechoslovakia by a mere six weeks.

Where there is a will, there is a way. Two things made this possible: Klaus’s insistence that it must happen fast, before organised business interests as well as government could mount a successful defence of the status quo. Then the fact that the two newly-created governments, for all the tension between them, worked together to apply current or previous arrangements in good faith. Wherever questions or differences arose, they sought an amicable solution where none of the parties would score a win for their side but rather one where future cooperation could be maintained.

Nobody was proposing divorce bills or ridiculous notions of planes not flying, trucks stuck at the border, licences not being recognised, or one country continuing to have jurisdiction over the other for the next 100 years. Time, and good faith, were of the essence.

If Czechs and Slovaks were able to separate an entire country in six months, surely Whitehall and the Berlaymont can find a way to extract one member state sooner than in six years.

Cartoon Network CEE In Czech Republic Now Airing Adverts From today (5th November), Cartoon Network Central Eastern Europe now has a Czech Republic/Slovakia advertising opt-out, Cartoon Network CEE’s ad-sales representative for the Czech/Slovak market – Atmedia are now accepting ad-sales for the channel. Atmedia is a large player in the CEE ad-sales market and are ... Read more

Two years, four months and a few days ago, on 23rd June 2016, the UK voted to leave the EU. The date of the UK leaving is currently set at 29th March 2019 – almost three years after the vote. It could be postponed further. In the case of a transitional arrangement that could last until at least the end of 2020, possibly even beyond the general election in 2022. That would be an enormous six years after the historic vote.

EU mandarins as well as Whitehall mandarins will tell you it must be this way because the relationship the UK has with the EU is too complex to untangle sooner.

However, history offers a different angle. World War I lasted four years, World War II lasted six. Perhaps it’s easier to conquer and then lose an entire continent than to separate two jurisdictions peacefully?

Instead, look at Czechoslovakia, the country where I was born, but a country I never think of as my birthplace. That is because before I even went to school, it had not only transformed from a socialist republic and a Soviet satellite to a liberal democracy, but it also split into two nations. All I have ever known, therefore, has been the Czech Republic. All the turbulent history – Václav Havel elected President, the Velvet Revolution, the first free election, the beginning of economic transformation, Václav Klaus elected Prime Minister, the Velvet Divorce – happened within the first six years of my life.

The curious thing about this is the Velvet Divorce. Let me just briefly remind you of the timeline: the pivotal elections that took place on 5th and 6th June 1992 saw Václav Klaus’s party in the Czech Republic and Vladimír Mečiar’s party in Slovakia both take the lion’s share of the vote in their respective state parliaments and the federal parliament (Czechoslovakia had already been a federation for over 20 years at this point).

Tensions erupted quickly. The Czech PM Václav Klaus met the Slovak PM Vladimír Mečiar in Brno on 8th July and they agreed to split up the federation. The agreement was signed on 26th August and Václav Havel resigned his seat in the meantime (20th July). By 13th November, a law had been enacted as to how the federal assets were going to be divvied up and twelve days later, an act was passed that set the dissolution date at 31st December. Complex matters such as the continuity of the Czech Parliament, continuity of laws, arrangements for courts and so on were all swiftly determined by December. A new Czech Constitution was passed on 16th December.

Czechoslovakia was dissolved at midnight on New Year’s Eve. When the people woke up the next morning, they had new nationalities and the Czech Parliament re-elected Václav Havel as President on 26th January 1993.

Within a mere six months, a comprehensive settlement had been agreed and activated. Immobile assets were distributed to the country where they sat, mobile assets and assets abroad were distributed according to the rough population ratio 2:1. Amendments to international treaties signed by Czechoslovakia were negotiated and signed very quickly by both new republics, confirming the continuation of such treaties. In 1996, the two countries signed a protocol specifying the distribution of duties enshrined by treaties signed as Czechoslovakia. All of this happened whilst Czechoslovakia and its constituent countries were undergoing a massive economic transformation.

Czechoslovakia was privatising on an unprecedented scale and at an unprecedented pace. In a way, it was like Brexit and the UK’s 1980s privatisations combined, only a lot more complicated. Whereas the 1980s UK privatised two companies a year, the early 1990s Czechoslovakia privatised two companies an hour. Taken together, these companies’ accounting value was a big share of GDP. The voucher privatisation alone (there were other methods of privatisation) privatised companies worth one third of Czechoslovak GDP. All of this was taking place at the exact same time the republics were being separated.

Let us not forget the fact that Czechoslovakia was also a currency union. The original idea was that the currency would continue after the separation, but the Czechoslovak koruna outlived Czechoslovakia by a mere six weeks.

Where there is a will, there is a way. Two things made this possible: Klaus’s insistence that it must happen fast, before organised business interests as well as government could mount a successful defence of the status quo. Then the fact that the two newly-created governments, for all the tension between them, worked together to apply current or previous arrangements in good faith. Wherever questions or differences arose, they sought an amicable solution where none of the parties would score a win for their side but rather one where future cooperation could be maintained.

Nobody was proposing divorce bills or ridiculous notions of planes not flying, trucks stuck at the border, licences not being recognised, or one country continuing to have jurisdiction over the other for the next 100 years. Time, and good faith, were of the essence.

If Czechs and Slovaks were able to separate an entire country in six months, surely Whitehall and the Berlaymont can find a way to extract one member state sooner than in six years.

25 Reasons Why You Should NEVER Visit SloveniaTotal Slovenia News1. Nobody knows where the hell it is. Slovenia? Slovakia? Slavonia? Where is this little country exactly? With the breakup of the former Yugoslavia and the collapse of Communist regimes all over Eastern Europe, a raft of new countries became independent.

Dalibor Rohac, Tablet MagazineThe BBC miniseries and opinion poll Great Britons (2002) is one of the success stories of British television, with spinoffs all around the worldmost recently in Slovakia. In the U.K., the title was earned by Winston Churchill; in Germany, the former Chancellor Konrad Adenauer was named our best, and in the U.S. version, produced by Discovery Channel,

The BBC miniseries and opinion poll Great Britons (2002) is one of the success stories of British television, with spinoffs all around the world—most recently in Slovakia. In the U.K., the title was earned by Winston Churchill; in Germany, the former Chancellor Konrad Adenauer was named “our best,” and in the U.S. version, produced by Discovery Channel, President Ronald Reagan topped the list.

Unfortunately, Slovakia’s iteration of the show, launched on Nov. 1 by the country’s public broadcasting corporation, the RTVS, has acquired a bitter anti-Semitic flavor. The television channel advertised Jozef Tiso (1887-1947), president of the wartime Slovak State, as one of the contenders for the title of the “Greatest Slovak.”

Wonderful set of 6 early mercury glass ornaments. All have their original metal caps and hangers, marked 'Czechoslovakia', in the original box.

Two are walnuts, two are grape clusters, and two are a large berry. Each is about 3 inches tall. Condition is very good. One of the grape clusters has lost some silvering on one shoulder, and one of the walnuts has lost a little silvering in one spot. These are some of the prettiest I have seen.

25 Reasons Why You Should NEVER Visit SloveniaTotal Slovenia News1. Nobody knows where the hell it is. Slovenia? Slovakia? Slavonia? Where is this little country exactly? With the breakup of the former Yugoslavia and the collapse of Communist regimes all over Eastern Europe, a raft of new countries became independent.

Czech national football team coach Jaroslav ilhav has announced thesquad line-up for upcoming internationals against Poland, in a friendly onThursday, and against Slovakia, next Monday, in a decisive Nations Leaguematch. There will be no new faces on the

The FC crew laud Barcelona's Champions League performance, in a draw with Inter that could just have as easily been a victory for the Spanish side.
MILAN, Italy&nbsp; -- Luciano Spalletti said Inter Milan centre-back Milan Skriniar was worth more than &#8364;100 million after his outstanding performance in Tuesday's Champions League draw at home to Barcelona.
Sources have told ESPN FC that Ajax's Matthijs de Ligt is Barca's top target in defence, but Skriniar is reportedly an alternative.
Manchester United and Real Madrid have also been linked with the Slovakia international as they look to add competition for Sergio Ramos and Raphael Varane.
"If...

ReclayPRO,a division of Reclay StewardEdge Inc. (RSE) is pleased to announce it will be offeringmarket based choices for tire producer compliance services in Ontario. These services will allow tire producers to meet their obligations under the new Ontario Tire Regulation in a cost effective manner without disruption or administrative burden to producers’ core business activities.

“We are very pleased to have Kal Tire, a leading Canadian tire dealer and retreader with extensive operations in Ontario, come on board as one of our first customers and suppliers.” says Ken Friesen, Director for ReclayPRO. “Their involvement as a producer, distributor, retailer, used tire collector and retreader makes them a great partner for ReclayPRO.” ReclayPRO includes a broad supply chain to serve a diverse group of producers and retailers, increase valuable material recovery and reduce overall system costs.

Our team has extensive experience in establishing and managing PROs globally, having established and managed 10 different compliance systems including in Canada, Germany, Austria, Czech Republic and Slovakia. In addition to ensuring our customers meet all of the regulatory requirements under the new Tire Regulation, ReclayPRO can also assist with companies looking to meet internal corporate recycling and sustainability targets and reporting. “The new Tire Regulation is clearly spurring more private sector investment and innovation in the province.”

ReclayPRO is a division of Reclay StewardEdge Inc. (RSE) with offices in Toronto, Winnipeg and the United States, and is part of the Reclay Group, a high-performance, experienced group of companies in the area of compliance systems and material recovery management with operations in Germany, France, Austria, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Spain and Chile. Our experience and expertise in the development of compliance systems, sustainability and resource management best practices is the foundation for our diverse suite of services.

MONTREAL — Slovakia will try to slow down the hard-hitting Canadian power game when the two teams meet in a Davis Cup qualifying round tie next year. The Slovak Tennis Federation said Tuesday that the Feb. 1-2 tie will be played on an indoor red clay...

[divider] Scott Stevens NHL Net Worth $5 Million [divider] Scott Stevens is a retired Canadian ice hockey player for New Jersey Devils that comes with an estimated net worth of $5 million. Scott Stevens started playing ice hockey when he earned a position on Kitchener Junior B team. He’d the chance to play in Czechoslovakia …

We're featuring this project as one of the best series submitted to the recently closed #FotoRoomOPEN | Gnomic Book edition. (Did you know? We're now accepting submissions for a new #FotoRoomOPEN call—the winner wins a solo show at Fotogalleri Vasli Souza. Find out more and enter your work).

An exhibition that is part of the French centenary commemorations for the end of World War I provides a fascinating historical and geographical eye-opener, centred on the peace treaties signed after the war and what came next in central and eastern Europe, as well as in the Middle East.
The Museum of the Armies, set in Paris's imposing Invalides complex built in the 17th century under Louis XIV, has brought together rare documents and artefacts, parts of uniforms or weapons, propaganda tools like posters from some 20 collections in France and Europe, east and west.
The museum's film department has joined Gaumont-Pathé in digging out and restored some rarely seen footage.
As part of the many events being organised in France this year for the centenary of the end of World War I, on 11 November 2018, the exhibition sheds light on the lesser known consequences of the devastating war on countries west of France and Italy.
Without ignorng the suffering of the soldiers and their families in the Flanders fields, the exhibition, put together by military historians and geographers, looks at what happened after the fall of four great empires, the Russian, Ottoman, Austro-Hungarian and German.
It shifts the historical emphasis to the east and reveals that after the signing of the Treaty of Versailles on 28 June 1919 conflict and crises were not over.
Geographically, the show moves from the treaty room on to Germany, Poland and the Baltic States and Russia. It pursues its course in Mitteleuropa, Austria, Hungary, Romania, Czechoslovakia, Bulgaria, the Kingdom of the Serbs, Croats, Slovenes and Albania.
The last room's focus is on the Levant, on Greece, Turkey, Syria and Lebanon (including Sykes-Picot sketches and a costume worn by TE Lawrence, known as Lawrence of Arabia).
Visitors can take in European border changes in the first room, since the 13th century. Then they can contemplate the question of nationalities and borders, revolutions, counter-revolutions, civil wars and civilian casualties. Finally they can examine the role of France, a country which emerged as a military power to be reckoned with, whose ambassadors and soldiers were highly influential in reestablishing stability.

I and my partner are searching for very responsible, reliable, experienced and professional full-stack developer to finish Bitcoin roulette site. The site was under development a month ago but the developers who were working on it wasn't good enough to finish it on time and without unnecessary bugs. The site contains pages and modals/popups like roulette (the game itself), withdraw, deposit, provably fair system etc.

All the code files which were coded for now will be available for the new developer with all necessary descriptions how it supposes to work. We're mainly searching for someone who already coded or worked on similar project (e.g. gambling site, bitcoin deposits &amp; withdraws...).

If you want to know more details and get a chance to get hired add me on Discord Cnosi#0934 and send me your portfolio site with previous works, descriptions of your skills &amp; languages etc.

Jenda Cerny is aged 19 an dlives in Slovakia. This sexy str8 guy is a student who enjoys sports, particularly football. In this Dream Set which was suggested by Norman. He looks very good as he sits on the sofa and does his interview in English. Then Jenda starts to run his hands over his... View Article

Welcome to your Daily News Digest. Here’s what’s happening today: Peter Sagan may no longer be the world champion, but he’s still cycling’s biggest star. The Slovakian is set to start his season in January, taking part in races on two continents that are just a week apart. Also, Wout Van Aert is attempting to …

The former bishop of Hong Kong said the Pope does not understand the communist regime

The recent agreement between the Vatican and China is a step towards the “annihilation” of the Catholic Church in China, Cardinal Joseph Zen, former bishop of Hong Kong, wrote in a New York Times op-ed published on Wednesday.

Zen, who has been openly critical of Vatican’s approach towards China in the past, did not hold back in his assessment of Pope Francis’ new deal and in offering his views on communist governments.

A Sept. 22 agreement between the Holy See and Beijing was intended to normalize the situation of China’s Catholics. The Church in China has been split between the “underground” Church, in full communion with Rome, and the state-run Chinese Patriotic Catholic Association (CPCA), which was not. The Chinese government appointed bishops of the CPCA.

(CNS/Liau Chung-ren, Reuters)

The September agreement was designed to unify those groups, by approving a formula through which Pope Francis would approve bishops nominated by Beijing.

But Zen’s op-ed said the distinction between the underground Church and the CCPA has not been eradicated.

He said those who attend the “underground” Church worship in secret and are subject to persecution from the government if they are discovered. Amid a religious crackdown in China, Zen said that priests of the underground church have been encouraging their parishioners to skip Mass for their own safety.

While Pope Francis is “very pastoral,” Zen said does not think that he properly understands how Communist China works. In Pope Francis’ home country of Argentina, the Communists worked to defend the poor against government oppression, often alongside Jesuits, he said. This could be why the pope “may have a natural sympathy for Communists,” as he views them to be persecuted.

It is far different, said Zen, in places where Communists are the ruling party–like China. When they acquire power, the Communists become the persecutors themselves, he said.

After Zen returned to China from studies in Rome in 1974, he said it had become a “whole nation under slavery,” and cautioned about society forgetting how oppressive the regime was at that time. And while he concedes that the Chinese government has made significant strides in embracing human rights, “you can never have a truly good agreement with a totalitarian regime.”

The current iteration of Church leadership does not properly understand the threat Communist governments pose to Catholics, said Zen. He praised the work of Cardinal Jozef Tomko, who was the prefect of the Congregation for the Evangelization of Peoples from 1985 until 2002. Tomko, who is from Slovakia, “understood communism, and he was wise,” said Zen.

Under Tomko, the Vatican considered only the underground Church in China as the true Church, and that while there were “many good people” in the state-sponsored church, it was “unlawful.” After Tomko’s retirement, however, Zen said things a turn for the worse with the appointment of Cardinal Crescenzio Sepe, who Zen described as “a young Italian with no foreign experience.”

Sepe “began legitimizing official Chinese bishops too quickly, too easily,” he said, which created an impression that the Vatican would “automatically” approve of any Bishop appointed by the Chinese government. This continued through Cardinal Ivan Dias, the next prefect, who was a “proponent of détente” with former Soviet states. This mentality carried over into Dias’ view of China and the Chinese Church.

Zen went as far as to accuse the Vatican of purposefully mistranslating Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI’s 2007 letter to Chinese Catholics that called for the reconciliation of the churches.

“In a delicate passage about how priests in the underground might accept recognition by the Chinese authorities without necessarily betraying the faith, a critical caveat was left out about how “almost always,” however, the Chinese authorities imposed requirements “contrary to the dictates” of Catholics’ conscience,” said Zen. This error in translation was “too important to have not been deliberate.”

Although the translation was eventually updated, it was too late, said Zen. The original letter had been “widely circulated” in China, and some of the underground church’s bishops understood the letter as permission for them to join the CPCA.

Zen was also critical of Vatican Secretary of State Cardinal Pietro Parolin, who he described as caring more about diplomatic success than he does about the Church. Parolin seeks to restore normal relations between the Vatican and China for the first time since 1950.

While the exact terms of the agreement between China and the Vatican were not released, Zen is not optimistic about the future of the underground church. While Pope Francis could still “veto” the nomination of a state-approved bishop, “how many times can he do that, really?”

“What good is having the last word when China will have all the words before it,” he asked. He also expressed doubt that the approximately 30 bishops of the underground church will still be permitted to function as bishops if the two churches are reconciled.

Since the agreement in September, two CPCA bishops were invited to attend the synod on youth. These men are “known to be close to the Chinese government,” and their attendance at the synod is “an insult to the good bishops of China.”

Despite this, Zen warned the clergy of the underground church against starting any kind of “revolution.” Instead, if the government takes away their churches or prohibits them from officiating, they should return to their families, continue praying, and “wait for better times.”

Mark Cavendish and Peter Sagan will be headline names at the 2019 Vuelta a San Juan, it has been confirmed. It will be the first time that the pair have ridden the South American race, having previously ridden the now-defunct Tour de San Luis.

"We are happy to confirm it,” San Juan sports minister Jorge Chica told Argentinian publication Diario de Cuyo. "The talks have been going on for some months and today, finally, we can confirm that Sagan will be here, giving more prestige to our Vuelta.

Sagan has previously ridden the Tour de San Luis, most recently in 2016 [the final edition of the race -ed], but it and the Vuelta a San Juan have traditionally clashed with the Tour Down Under. However, there will be no such issues for the Slovakian next year with San Juan set to start a few days later. While the Tour Down Under will take place between January 15 to 20, the Vuelta a San Juan is slated for January 27 to February 3.

Cavendish last started his season in South America in 2015, where he won the final stage of the Tour de San Luis. In recent years, the Manxman has opted to begin his year at the Dubai Tour and this will also be the first time in two years that he has begun racing in January.

Slovakia will try to slow down the hard-hitting Canadian power game when the teams meet in a Davis Cup qualifying round tie in February. The Slovak Tennis Federation announced the series will be played on an indoor red clay court at the 4,000-seat NTC...